this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2026
333 points (94.2% liked)
Memes
55664 readers
751 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel like all your objections are just about the terminology used in an article I didn't write. I wouldn't use the term "bourgeois proletariat" for example, but the actual point that the article is making is correct and insightful.
Yeah, no shit, that's the point.
There's people in here blindly believing this propaganda even when it comes from such a biased and unreliable source as the NYP. That's not because of a failure of critical thinking or because they're just "stupid" or something, it's because they simply choose not to engage in critical thinking at all. Because, as I said, they don't actually care whether it's true or not, they just enjoy getting a chance to shit on the DPRK to feel better about their own lives and their own system.
You can't convince people based off facts and evidence if they're basing their beliefs off of things completely unrelated to facts and evidence. Tell them the NYP is unreliable and they'll probably just attack you for "defending North Korea" or they'll demand you prove a negative (and not bother to read if you actually put in the effort). They simply want to believe the propaganda.
I don't see why you're so offended by this idea.
You deferred to authority with your reference to a blog that defines classes of people as "westerners" and "proletariat bourgeoisie". Those definitions are then used throughout the article as though they are commonly known entities, and even further entities that should be considered a lesser class. Regardless of the article you linked, the quotes that you selected use the terminology I am questioning.
So I am asking to define what those classes are, and which people are bound to that definition? I own my house, but not my means of production; does that make me a "proletariat bourgeoisie" or just a modern peasant? What if someone owns a small business but rents an apartment?
Jesus Christ, any time I cite any sort of theory about anything people immediately jump down my throat with this "appeal to authority" bullshit.
I referenced the blog not because it has any sort of "authority" but because it explains the concept quite well.
I'm sorry that, apparently unlike you, I'm capable of respecting insight regardless of whether it's written in the most proper, ideologically correct phrasing.
No. Message the author if you want a definition. I already told you I wouldn't use the term personally.
The overall point is quite clear regardless of that terminology. And you haven't said a single thing to contest that point, you're just whining about phrasing for no apparent reason.
No, I'm asking you for your definition. Who are you punching down on? If you don't know, then you are assuming their definitions.
What they mean is the proletariat of exploitative countries, those in the imperial core, who they see as having a distinct class character from the proletariat of exploited countries.
Does that satisfy your pointless pedantry? Of course not. Now you'll find another pointless detail to quibble over, or you'll nitpick my definition. Because the point being made seems to have struck a nerve with you, but you can't actually find anything to counter it so you focus on this nonsense.
If the shoe fits, wear it. I'm guessing you know it's true, at least on some level, and that's why you're doing this.
Of course not, because you haven't answered my question. What's a Westerner? What's a Bourgeoisie Proletariat?
Literally just did.
Is this how I find out I have psychic powers? Who could've predicted this?
Yet again, completely ignoring the actual point so you can do this pointless nickpicking and pedantry. Not one word that you've said has actually been relevant to anything. Extremely predictable, again, it's because you know it's true and you're defensive about it.
I already told you it's not even my fucking term.
Seriously? You can fucking google it, dumbass. Everyone knows what a Westerner is.
I'm not playing your game.
What do you mean by, "your own words?" Can you define it? What does the word "what" mean? Can you define it?
You do this blatantly bad faith shit, I'm just gonna start throwing it back in your face. I don't care whether you call me a dumbass, I care if you're being intellectually dishonest, which you very clearly are.
Why didn't you answer my question? What does it mean to put something in "my own words?" Are you a dumbass? Why can't you answer that when you said it yourself? What's a "world view" by the way? Can you define that, or are you too dumb to?
Which the author is placing in their worldview. I have been abundantly clear that I do not agree with their terminology. You're just trying to attack me on complete and total bullshit because you know you can't address my actual point.
What's a viewpoint? Can you define it? What does it mean to refute something? Can you define it?
Why aren't you answering me? You must know what these words mean if you're using them. Are you a dumbass?
Say whatever you like. I've put up with your shit long enough and I'm just going to keep doing this.
Go ahead, say I'm acting in bad faith for doing exactly what you did.
We've already seen exactly how you respond when I do answer your bad faith questions, so expect that too.
After this conversation, I assume so.
INB4 you critique "my" phrasing again
What's a "question?" Can you define it?
Sure, just as soon as you answer what I asked about what a question is. That's not an answer.
Did you miss the part where I said I'd throw your bad faith tactics straight back in your face? You don't like my tactics, then you don't like your tactics, because all I'm doing is holding up a mirror.
By linking to a clip by System of a Down, are you saying you think my parents have down syndrome?
I play chess exactly the way you play chess. I told you this repeatedly.
Do you really not understand what's happening here? How much more blatant do I have to be?
You used a shit ton of bad faith tactics in this conversation. I could have, and to some extent did call them out. But then you can just ignore, deny, or otherwise dismiss that.
Which is why I'm simply throwing them straight back in your face. I've said several times that I'm using bad faith tactics, but I'm doing that for a purpose. Because now you have to be the one to label these tactics as bad faith. And every single bad faith tactic I employed is something you did first.
Demonstration by example. Is it frustrating the way I keep asking you pointless, irrelevant questions, making it impossible to have a conversation? Maybe you'll think about that the next time you do that, the way you did from the start. Does it piss you off the way I twist your words around, the way you do with mine? You don't like how I pretended you didn't answer the same way you did? Boo fucking hoo. You wanna go low, I will be right there with you. I am not afraid to get dirty wrestling a pig.
So yes, I am in fact playing chess like a pigeon, because I am playing chess with a pigeon, and I'm just following your lead. I'd be perfectly happy to have a real conversation otherwise.
Liberal's brain conveniently stopped working. All knowledge that could inconvenience them just magically disappeared.
Repeats "I am very stupid" ten times in a row, thinks repeating a lie often enough makes it true. Must have been a very painful hit to the liberal worldview.
Least obviously bad faith .worlder